was there a time you became aware that in fact you had a known, a known group of buyers including mr. pitino at 730 weapons and units at the purchaser, the money man, intended on transporting goes to mexico? was there ever a time that you knew that? >> there was never a time that i do that. >> mr. noel. >> there was never a specific time when he that. >> please stay away from words like specific. they worry me. did you get to an understanding that you had a known buyer buying from these people with an intent to traffic them to the

cartels? was there a time? >> throughout the investigation we had information. >> what was the first time that you have that information? that this group was trafficking firearms. >> that you have a known buyer mr. acosta or that group and that the purchasers, some of the straw purchasers they were buying from redact providing to these people for their purpose of transporting? >> i ask you this question very simple. wait a second. you have been here is a paid nonanswer are so far and i appreciate that you have been here is a paid nonanswer, but there comes a point where i go wait a second. 730 weapons bought by a man who had no money. every penny he bought with he had to get from somebody. you knew that at some point. you knew who was buying them and you allowed it to continue. there comes a point where as we go through the rest of the investigation, and this was

about mexico and i want to get back to that very quickly that there comes a point where we have to have more more than just mistakes were made. my understanding is you knew from credible information, your organization new, that in fact you had a buyer providing the money to pitino and others that he was taking possession of those weapons and you knew with specificity that those weapons, some of them had already ended up in mexico. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> what was the first-aid? 09, what was the first-aid? [inaudible] >> to answer your question throughout the investigation we have information that pitino, mr. medina was working with mr. acosta. >> from day one you had a straw purchaser with no means of support buying hundreds of weapons, providing them to his intermediary which meant that both of them were very much a part. he didn't have a buy situation at this point. you had an individual who could

be charged with participation in the actual trafficking of weapons. you had somebody who was trafficking for specifically for the intent of getting into the drug cartels providing huge amounts of information. i am sorry, huge amounts of money. you had that early on. we are now two years later and you have only charged 18 other people with buy-in flagg and the one person you knew early on was doing this. where quite frankly is any semblance of roll up or any semblance of going further? it looks like you knowingly allow these to be sold, waiting to see if the other and in mexico would give you information. it seems like you knowingly allow these weapons to get out of your control, knowingly, to someone you knew was trafficking into mexico. you saw the results. you allowed it to continue and now you are telling us, we know

that guns walk. i'm going to tell you before this investigation and i have got to have somebody in your position admit you knowingly let guns walk because right now your agents, both the agents here today from mexico and the agents that were part of phoenix and part of this program who became whistleblowers have told us you were letting guns walk. if only i'll make you an mr. mr. met man and other people continue to come before this committee and say we don't let guns walk, are they lying or are you lying? >> sir, this investigation is that we have not let guns walk. >> you are entitled to your opinion, not your facts. at that we go to the gentleman, mr. tierney. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. wall before you were transferred to the atf field office in tijuana mexico you are in the phoenix office, is that correct? >> yes, sir. i was.

you said in your testimony personally saw some of the trafficking cases languish in the u.s. attorney's office. is that an accurate statement? >> yes, sir. >> we have also had other atf agents tell us the same thing that there was a liking am perceiving of these cases in the u.s. attorney's office. when was that. macrotime you were assigned to the phoenix office? >> well, i was working primarily grim trafficking to mexico from 2007 until i left for tijuana in 2009, following 2009. >> mr. newell a number of atf witnesses that the committee interviewed has said this case was ready for indictment probably in august of 2010 but the u.s. attorney's office didn't really seek the indictments until june of 2011. is that an accurate reflection? >> yes, sir. >> do you know why you experience these delays? >> i think that is a question better asked by the u.s. attorney's office. >> did they give you an

understanding of why there was it a late? >> they were continuing to put together information. [inaudible] >> specifics regarding financial for the money laundering statutes that are and they money laundering violations in the indictment. >> do you consider those reasons to be legitimate or do you think they were somewhat suspect? >> i believe that they were legitimate in the sense of the return on -- yes, sir. >> mr. met man he said a number of your agents were certainly frustrated from time to time with u.s. attorney's office in phoenix, greg? >> that what was being relayed to me, yes. >> did you have direct knowledge of that? >> yes, there is a personal friend that i have the works in phoenix that i hired in new york. he did express his frustration. >> now at some point in time with mr. newell and mr. met man you thought that the case was ready for indictment in august of 2010 and after that.

did you start using seizure warrants? >> we started doing that i believe in september of 2010 in an effort to seize firearms as we were waiting for an indictment. >> cease-fire civilly. >> so once you thought the case had been made, then he started to try to take extra actions to make sure that the weapons didn't get beyond a certain point? when would you exercise the seizure in relation to this whole trafficking activity going on? >> i thank you for the question. during the summer of 2010, we finally convinced certain individuals in the judiciary that we had a very strong -- we believe we had a very strong it will -- ability or theory on being able to seize firearms civilly and we got that approved in september of 2010. >> this problem with the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix and the like of time between when

people in the field thought they had the case made, is that a problem that exists with the current u.s. attorney? >> i will say sir that having been there five years when i was there from 2006 to 2011 the current u.s. attorney has been much more aggressive and much more proactive than three these administrations. >> assisting in having that issue? >> yes, sir. >> mr. mcmahon you told atf agents develop certain cases but that you are agents presented those cases to the s. attorney's office in phoenix and the assistant u.s. attorney declined to prosecute and said there was no violation. do you remember telling him that? >> i do remember speaking about it in a single case relayed to me by bill newell, yes. >> can you give us specifics? >> what was told to me was we were working on an operation at

a gun show. our agents observe someone that looks this -- suspicious pushing a baby carriage with a couple of long guns in it. they followed her out to the parking lot, where she actually transferred back to an individual and our agents sought transfer of money. we had other agents followed the car that had the guns out of the parking lot. pulled them over to a traffic stop and identified him as a multiple convicted felon not only with the two guns with that the woman gave her but also a third time. we confronted the woman and she confessed that she was paid to purchase these weapons are quite believe it was a saturday or sunday when this happened. bill related to me that it was presented to the duty agent in phoenix and they suggested that we take the case to state court. >> thank you. i am going to yield back to the ranking member at this point in

time. >> thank you very much. >> you also have another 30 seconds. >> thank you astir chairman. special agent newell i want to go back to something the chairman asked you, because i want to make, i want is to be real clear and this is for the benefit of the entire committee. i am trying to figure out what your definition of walking guns is. maybe that is part of the problem. i think, because almost everybody up here has our opinion about this, and i'm just wondering if there's a difference between your definition of walking, allowing guns to walk and hours. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to answer that. my definition of walking and i believe it is the common law enforcement term is what a law enforcement agency did.

it actually put some sort of evidence into the hands of the suspect and furtherance of an investigation and then does nothing to, with that property. the property could be a prop gun or one of our evidence guns and put in the hands of that suspect and then don't take, don't do the follow-up and don't attempt to determine where that is going. >> so you don't think there was any walking allowed based on that definition in this case, based on that definition? >> based on that definition, yes. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from arizona mr. gosar for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. newell one of my colleagues on the other side brought it up about new laws. i want to emphasize thomas wasn't the gun sales operator. let me emphasize that again. it wasn't. they were alarmingly bringing forth these -- were they not?

>> i am sorry? >> here we go again. >> it seems like this is a moe, curly and larry show and we are looking for larry. i mean it is disruptive to actually see what i'm seeing here. as a businessperson coming from main street america to actually see what i'm seeing here, you have got to be disgusted about this. to go around and around the corner, it is ridiculous. agents canino, i watch her body language. i am a health care position. i watch body language like crazy. tell me what you disagree with that man right there. >> on the specific case? >> how about records? let's talk about records. are there adequate records being kept? and how they relate between the sale of these guns to mexico. >> i think atf does a great job in regulating the firearms industry. >> that in this case did they,

were they able to track them? >> no, sir. the only reason -- you have to put this in context. everyone is saying this case was so good and it was complicated. firearms trafficking cases are not complicated. they are not complicated. reason this case was so big was because we didn't do anything. plain and simple. everybody wants to make this bigger than it is. like i said earlier, you don't have to -- i spent 19 years, 15 as a street agent and four in leading a street. you don't have the luxury or the right in my opinion as an atf agent to say i like this law or i like that law. you guys set the laws and we follow them. is up to me as an atf agent how best to make up an investigative technique and best practices. so i can make a case and presented to the u.s. attorney. i've done my job. now it is up to the u.s. attorney if he wants to

prosecute or not. i'm going to bring the best case i can. in this case like i said earlier we have the atf prosecuting guidelines and best practices and we just threw it out the window. nobody got stopped. like i said earlier, how can you let somebody by 730 guns? at what point are you going to stop them? i am embarrassed. i have agents, guys who i consider american heroes, my friends, who i never thought would hear this who have told me since this broke, carlos i'm ashamed to carry an atf badge. i have cried over that literally and i'm not ashamed to say that. this is not a job to me. is a profession. i don't have a hobby. my hobby is as an atf agent. i love this. i hit the lottery when i came on. i'm proud of what i do in front of the atf agents. we have heroes, we really do and i have been watching your body language and mr. bergman's.

i'm sorry, sir. that is all i can say. i have no other way to describe this. >> i look at this and i look at -- we weren't doing medical procedures we look at what is our in game and the process in between. there is collateral damage in the and the problem is the collateral damage is a crime in their going to be just like we just on there will be many more and they are on their side and they are on that site and you know what that is held -- tells me? when we were in the planning stage that a problem. it is right there in the office in the head office coming up with this. this was absurd to even have this idea and to hear this merry-go-round and bantering back and around rummy can get an answer from mr. noel, the buck stop someplace. who is it? it is obvious to me it is not these two gentlemen here. i want to find out who larry is. that is where we are going to have to go with this. this is absurd and it is the

fact that we use people's lives and our friends from mexico as pawns in this without even discussing it? how absurd. if this ever happens -- it is a reprehensible what has transpired here. and i hope the buck stops and i take there is accountability all the way through. this can't go on again. both sides of the aisle are furious. the american people are just furious. this is what you get for high ups in atf or the department of justice? shame on you and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from virginia for his five minutes. mr. connolly. >> thank you mr. chairman, and i am sure all of our panelists are so pleased to be here today. i guess i have a slightly

different steak on the subject. i don't defend "fast and furious" and i don't defend the actions of the u.s. attorney's office at the time in phoenix and i certainly believe that it was a botched attempt to lead -- that led to a tragedy, perhaps many tragedies and i think this committee and the chairman are right to face those issues and to try to assign lame. but there is another part of the story i doubt very much as far as headlines because it is so much easier to print who screams the loudest at atf and that you got beat up. but with the press won't print tomorrow sadly is the fact that congress's hands are hardly clean on this subject. we have done everything to make sure that the f in atf is nullified. we have made sure that you have got a permanent director for six

years. what private company would think it is okay to lack a permanent ceo for six years? we have done everything in our power to try to defang the atf to make sure that it is toothless. we have done everything we can to fight your budget and reduce it so that you don't have the resources to do the job. we are not criticizing you for not doing well. we had testimony before this committee by one of your colleagues called by the committee majority, who said there were more new york police officers per square mile in new york than there are atf agents in all of the state and yet somehow we are going to stop the hemorrhaging of arms trafficking going into mexico with that kind of poultry set of resources. but that won't be in the headlines tomorrow. some of the loudest critics of

atf today are also on a bill. this name, the bureau for alcohol firearms and -- what does that bill do? it allows firearms dealers to liquidate their inventories after having their arms license revoked. and would decriminalize recordkeeping violations even if they contributed to cross-border gun trafficking. how does that help atf? where is the accountability here in congress on this subject? it is easy to beat up on you. it is easy to look for a scapegoat when the agenda really is to make sure that we make it harder, not easier, to enforce gun trafficking. we had testimony from one of your colleagues before this committee who said there is more regulation on over-the-counter sudafed then there is an arms trafficking going to mexico.

and he testified and was interrupted in his testimony because it wasn't welcome, that he believes we needed to toughen enforcement laws as a tool for atf to be able to fill a position along the border. so i have no doubt that we can all pile on and correctly criticize the atf for a botched mission. but sadly with the presses and going to bother to write about, but they should, is the fact that congress for six long years and maybe longer has done everything in its power to make sure in fact you can do your job. this set of hearings needs to explore that too. with that i yield back the balance of my time for the ranking member. >> there is no, currently no

federal statute that criminalizes firearms trafficking. instead traffickers are often prosecuted -- which prohibits engaging in firearms without a license. the statute was also a common refrain of law enforcement as mr. connolly said. they told us they dedicated firearms statute would give them the ability to address activity by traffickers to divert firearms in legal commerce. mr. leadman based on your decades in law enforcement do you believe the statute would be helpful in disrupting the flow of guns to the mexican drug cartels? >> yes, sir. i viewed your. oppose legislation and i agree with that wholeheartedly. one of the things that i think might be added to that is a little more emphasis on

international trafficking. maybe we can tighten it up a little bit as far as going to drug cartels. if you reach a certain amount of weapons that could be a life offense. >> thank you very much. i thank the gentleman and we now go to the gentleman from texas mr. farenthold also a number who went to mexico city. >> thank you -- very must mr. chairman. they were talking about how much more difficult it is and how much more regulated the purchases of sudafed is. i don't see anywhere in the constitution where we are guaranteed the right to bare sudafed that we are guaranteed the right to bear arms so i think that is an appropriate or inappropriate distinction. mr. mcmahon when my friend the former prosecutor from south carolina ask you what the goal of this was, you said that it was to bring down a drug kingpin in mexico. is that a fair assessment?

>> did i say that, sir? >> i'm sorry. i guess that was mr. newell. did you say that mr. newell? >> i believe i said the investigation was to -- the entire trafficking network. >> i believe you said drug king -- ting kan. let me ask mr. newell -- mr. guiltless the mexican government know who the drug kingpins are in mexico? >> sir, they are aware of the heads of the organizations and to answer your question shortly, yes. >> and so, let me go ahead and ask you another question their mr. gil. in your time working with the mexican government as the former atf fsa in mexico did they ever ask us to do anything like that? you let guns come across the border so they could track them or find a bring down drug kingpins?

>> no, sir. >> alright, let me go on to mr. canino. i want to applaud your service in your candor with this committee. we have heard that we are trying to bring down the drug kingpins or whatever the words were as far as stop the trafficking. if you were put in charge of developing an investigation to do that, how would you do that? which are plan involved letting firearms move across the border? how would you do it? >> to stop the drug kingpin and? >> or more simply with stopping firearms trafficking. >> i would call dea because that is what they do. number two, you work for traffic investigations like pain by number. it is frustrating being a. that comes with a badge. trafficking investigation, the laws like i said you have to be

open-minded i guess is the word i'm looking for. i don't know if it is the best description, but like i said it is paint by the numbers. you have to work like building a house. you build your foundation and you work from the bottom up. in this case nobody got stopped. they didn't grab somebody and say hey okay we are going to roll you. and i don't want to go into sources or methods but there is a whole -- we have schools on this. >> if you watch a cop show you know how to stun. >> you follow the guns or your rest him at the first top and try to flip them both or if you really want to partner with the mexican government you follow the guns across the border and radio across to your colleagues in mexico and they move out of the line there. it seems like common sense to me. i want to assess question to everybody on the panel because i think this is really important. we have seen operations and have recently heard about operation cast away, a similar program in

florida. are any of you all aware at this time of any similar operation going on that allows guns to flow across the border to friendly countries now? are you all aware of those and if you are or are we doing anything to stop it? if you could come on down the line and we will start with mr. mcmahon. >> i'm not aware of any case like that friendly or unfriendly, no. >> is anybody? >> no. >> no sir, i'm not aware of any. >> we only found out about this winter whistleblowers and my prayer is if there was anybody watching this committee hearing atf or or another agency that knows something going on like this that they let this committee know. this is one of the shameful moment i think in our government history when we are leading guns go across the border to our friends in mexico. let me just ask -- i only have 32 seconds left. i'm going to stick around for a second round of questions so i will heal that i remaining 30

seconds. >> i will pick it up. special agent newell what this is program spend in money? millions of dollars, right? "fast and furious." on the side we think of it is a program and you think of it is a simple investigation. the investigation, you spent point of dollars over the course of two years, correct? hundreds of thousands? agents were camped out in some cases for a period of time at a drop location? >> yes, sir. >> so when you are trying to do the big hit, the big six, getting the big guys why is the testimony shows us only three times where there were any kind of inspections planned and i don't want to get into sources either but only three times we have been told that they try to do any detection and one of the gps tracking was a radioshack making -- why in the world was the quality and the quantity of agents and times, video cameras

planted with internet connections etc., why is it there wasn't a tracking to track the weapons? >> we had trackers on vehicles. we have it trackers on -- it goes back to resources. we have agents that are out there working 16, 18 and 20 hour days. >> unfortunately you just made my case and time is expired. 18 hours of an agent's time is so much more money than one of these tracking devices if you are penny-wise and pound who wish by not having the device. with that we go to the gentlelady from the district of columbia for her five minutes. >> what would have would have been the next step? >> well maam, it depends on how long the firearms state in the area. for instance many of the transactions here, the firearms levered left the phoenix area and the battery life up a tracker is only good depending. >> so the phoenix area, what

could you charge the so-called trafficker? this law-abiding citizen who doesn't have a record but he is buying many many guns. what could you charge him? >> there is nothing to charge him with at that moment. we have to prove a violation has existed and has occurred. >> i just want to say, to sit in in the hearing a hearing in here people beat up on the atf is very very interesting to me. use it in our congress where the gun lobby's are you for the congress of the united states. on the republican side of the aisle they are totally controlled and on my side of the aisle they virtually control them. and the second 2nd amendment is cited as you try to do your job to keep guns from essentially bringing down the government of an ally.

but when it comes to mexico let me ask you what kind of gun control laws does mexico have? do any of you know about their gun control laws? >> yes, maam. i do. >> would you speak up? >> civilians can buy nothing greater than a 38 caliber. anything after that is for the exclusive use of the military. >> here is mexico who says essentially, it makes it very difficult for anyone except someone in law-enforcement or the military to get a gun so they come to the united states where trafficking is wide-open. let me ask you this. we are concentrating on mexico now. let me ask you about trafficking to chicago. let me ask you about trafficking to the district of columbia to baltimore.

let me ask you about trafficking to l.a.. to the same traffickers operate as effectively in our country as we have now seen them operate, taking guns to mexico? >> i believe that the organizations are little bit different and that is why i said earlier, we have never encountered an organization like this for mexico. trafficking in the u.s. my experience in a way as a, little bit more association related but obviously trafficking domestically is a major issue for us and i spent the majority of my career working on some of these cases. >> if a person, let's say buys 200 guns and hear you made mistakes. if i had a dollar for every mistake this congress has made when it came to guns i would get very rich woman. you made a mistake. it was the fatal mistake. it was a mistake for which you are being held accountable.

let's say you hadn't made a mistake. that someone without a record rod guns that week. you found me with 200 guns. what could you do to me? >> nothing at all, maam. >> did you feel disarmed in your fight against this wholesale movement of guns from our country to mexico, or did you feel you were equipped to in fact by law enforcement to do what was necessary? >> i think my experience -- atf agents are very resilient. you have to be to make the case and that is what our people do and they do that everyday and they are out there doing that today. >> and they may design tactics to make themselves more effective on the ground. >> i think that is what we should always be doing.

>> could i ask each of you, would you feel better able to stop this trafficking if the congress passed a law that made it and added to our criminal code, a section that prohibited the transfer of a gun when an individual knows the gun will be transferred to a person who is prohibited from carrying a gun or intends to actually use the gun illegally? >> we currently do have a statute that does handle that. that is the whole federal forms violation. >> lying on the federal form get you to wear? >> gets us do, if we can prove that someone knowingly feel that the form and correctly or lied. >> can you seize guns? we have been talking about seizures here.

in order to seize guns, what is the atf have to show? >> that a violation of law is committed with that fire and. >> the gentlelady time has expired but if anyone wants to answer the question. >> what is the law that is in violation? >> if anyone else wants to answer. >> thank you mr. chairman. we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that hiram was used in violation of a crime or in violation of the crime. you can just go out and randomly series firearms for an individual. firearms themselves are not contraband. we stop someone on the street with 28 k.'s -- as frustrating is frustrating as frustrating as that may be and believe me to stick extremely frustrating but it's extremely frustrating is that as we don't have any legal ability to seize those firearms. >> anyone else want to answer that xps mr. chairman. as i look around the room i've had the opportunity to work in pretty much every state of the

union. i have always been able to use the current laws to success in the investigations, whether you are pulling somebody over what they -- 100 ak-47's, found atf special agent are very qualified and interviewing techniques. 99.9% of the time they get confessions from those individuals. we will take those guns and it's not that case we would at least end up getting an abandonment from them for those weapons so they don't hit the streets. there are other avenues to approach versus we could use them in the current laws. >> thank you. nalc going to the most qualified person the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you mr. chairman. special agent, you are a trained special agent for atf. you trained in the issue of walking guns? >> no, serve. >> with regard to walking guns when you are in training what do

you know -- what what does atf tell you about walking guns? >> you don't want guns. they teach -- i teach our first line supervisor school. i teach our command-and-control school. >> are you aware of anybody who has been disciplined for walking a gun? >> no, sir. darren talk to me last night and put into perspective. if if you are an atf agent and use a gun at his three days no questions that. if it is your gun, just three days. >> what do you define as a walking gun? >> what exactly happened in this case. >> in your words what you think walking a gun is? >> walking a gun is when you have custody and control of that firearm and you let it get in the hands of a suspect and you don't interject that suspect. in that case, we had co-op

readers at the gun store so they are acting as agents of the government. doesn't matter for those guns came out of an atf prop fault. >> thank you. is that what you meant when you said that if atf puts evidence into the hands of the hands of a suspect there are distinctions somehow between the straw purchaser getting it are atf putting it -- please explain to me what you meant by the distinction of atf putting it in the hands of a suspect? >> atf is action of putting evidence or some kind of prop buyer in the hand of the suspect. >> that is a distinction from a straw purchaser who goes and under your observation? >> in that aspect, yes sir it is. >> so you are suggesting here that the distinction is, because you did not put the gun in the hands of the purchaser here,

somehow there is a distinction from allowing a gun to walk? >> congressman i disagree with something mr. canino said regarding they were acting as agents in the government. my recollection in this case, two in particular were instructed to follow the letter of the law to abide by the rules and regulations. >> the strategy. you you were asked a specific question. who defines the strategy? >> a case like that goes to several levels of approval. >> who originated the strategy for fast fast and various? >> i believe it was at the street-level. >> tell me who the person is who created the strategy for "fast and furious"? you are the special agent in charge of your area emanating from your district. who originated the concept for "fast and furious"?

>> cert is not one person to do that. is a group of individuals that looked at the set of facts, in this case and determined this was the best strategy. >> where did it start? where does this dream start? tell me who participated in that conclusion. >> it was several individuals. was the group supervisor, myself and individuals. >> so there were a number of people who were very learned in this process and you testified here today earlier no part of the strategy to allow guns to be taken to mexico. there was no part in the strategy to allow guns to be taken to mexico. is that right? >> to knowingly allow guns. in this case we had seizures. >> i asked you a specific question. i said there was no part in the strategy to allow guns to mexico. with mr. mcmahon have

participated in any way in the development of this policy or the "fast and furious" strategy? >> i know he was aware of it. >> mr. met man you testified -- he has $70,000 he wants $70,000 worth of guns. >> someone who could controls an area for cartel. >> and where is that? >> in mexico. >> so you testified the part of the theory here, your words, if the platts abbas expects $70,000 with the weapons. >> correct. >> mr. newell, the strategy mr. mcmahon identifies that you expect you understand that he expects $70,000 worth of weapons. where does that get in that there was no part in the strategy to allow guns to be taken to mexico? >> yes, sir.

during the beginning parts of this case we did not know who the platts abbas was. >> that is not my question about who the platts abbas was. the question is is if there applies abbas? agent but ban said he is in mexico and the platts abbas expects $70,000 worth of guns. now you are saying no part of the strategy was allowing guns to go to mexico. >> the strategy wasn't to allow guns to go to mexico. >> what did agent mcmahon just say? who else participated in this? >> i ask unanimous consent the gentleman be allowed to have another 30 seconds. that implies a certain point in time it moves beyond your agency. what does that mean with regard to that? what other participants were there? >> there other agencies involve. >> what other agencies were involved in this?

>> in this investigation there were full partners in this case, homeland security investigations and we have the internal revenue service and assistance at some level from dea. >> are you saying dea, irs and dice all knew about this program? to participate in the oath of that? >> that participate in the investigation. >> where they go where the guns were being walked to mexico? >> sir again i am assuming. >> they were aware of the strategies which included would special agent mcmahon talked about allowing $70,000 with the guns to go to the plaza boss. >> sarah never said we allowed $70,000 worth of guns. >> you said the expectation. >> i was given a scenario of how it works. there is a plaza boss boss so he is not getting it from the network we are investigating he is getting it from somewhere else. the $70,000 apple i was giving

you wasn't specific to this investigation. it was an over generalization about mexico works. >> we are talking about the plaza boss a mexico. >> the gentleman time has expired. expired. we will have a second round rounders dimon. the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am uncertain as to where to start here because of what i have heard. i think i will start with mr. canino. your comment was that it is inconceivable to let guns go. it is not the way the atf does things so when your experience, is what happened in the "operation fast and furious" an aberration from the usual way that atf does business? >> this is the first time i've heard of anything like this. i start my 22nd year on friday. this is the first time i have heard anything like this. >> and during the course of this operation were you advised that there was going to be -- at what point did you become aware that there was going to be a different method of operation

and xp man money to put this in context. the first time i ever heard of someone accusing atf agents of actually watching suspected gun traffickers just drive away was special agent dotson on cbs. and i didn't believe him and i was very vocal about that. i didn't become aware until it started coming out little by little talking to fellow agents, and then mid-april i saw some documents and that commits me that would special agent dotson was alleging wasn't that correct. >> thank you and the other special agents that are here, mr. gil, mr. subdo in your experience is as the first time you have seen and atf operate this way? >> i recently retired after going on 23 plus years.

it is inconceivable and again i didn't believe it even after seeing mr. dodson as well and i still didn't believe it until after i talked to mr. dodson and others that i became convinced that perhaps atf did use. >> has a as i stated in my opening remarks, yes. is the first time i've ever seen it and i was very skeptical. i believe mr. dodson wasn't alone. >> part of my duty is to look at the southwest border cases, all of them and this is the first one i have seen. i would like to add something that the panel was asking earlier. now you asked when we first became aware that mr. acosta was involved as the leader of the straw purchasing ring and some of the other issues as to mr. pitino. that was in 2009. and it was early on. i briefed it to my senior

directors january of 2010. and we know this in one of the driving forces behind how we know that these were going to mexico, and there were mexico people involved, is because or other law-enforcement partners provided us with information, specific information that allowed us to know exactly what was going on and to what cartel it was going to. this was not a mystery. we knew this in december of 2009. i briefed it in 2010. january. >> thank you, sir. special agent newell, and mr. mcmahon we will get to you because you are the supervisor. so at some point, based on the ig's report in doj, they said we are going to try something different here. i'm assuming because that is the way things work in government and maybe i'm wrong, if someone says we need to have this operation and we are going to

make a determination that for for the first-time atf is going to conduct business this way. we are going to let these guns walk. they maybe didn't say it but in essence that is really what happened. it is a different way of conducting business with atf. where would that plan have come from? i know you sat down with this group mr. noel, but somebody higher up than you made a determination that for the first time atf is going to run this. we have heard from this panel and we have heard from the panel prior today that this is a complete aberration to the way atf has done things. where would that have come from? >> well maam, importing the strategy together for this case the strategy came from several places. the department adjusted originated a draft in january 2010 about how to combat southwest border drug trafficking by mexican drug cartels and one of them dealt with firearms trafficking that

said three tzipi located strike forces a mere interdiction is not the answer. you have to go after the structure and the organization of whatever it be, firearms, human drug trafficking to make the biggest impact. >> and who would that memo have come from? >> i do believe that memo came down from the deputy attorney general's office. >> and then, so now we are going to change the strategy. it is going to be a different way to conduct an operation. so you get your directives from them and these groups you talk about, you sat down and it came up with a plan noted that plan come from. >> the plan figured into come or the memo figured into how we were going to address when we first looked at it in november 2009 was already a prolific firearms trafficking organization. in my 23 years we have never seen an organization that was this prolific in buying firearms in such a short terry mac of

time so we felt at that time in conjunction with the strike wars for this group seven was located that the best way to attack this organization was through the use of a multiagency conspiratorial type investigation to dismantle the moral organization. >> the b. gentlelady's time is expired and we now go to the gentleman from michigan, mr. ahmad should. >> i'm going to yield my time to mr. gowdy. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan. mr. leadman for those who are perhaps watching and not familiar with the full panoply of investigative techniques surveillance is a tried and true investigative technique, correct? what about consensual encounters where you just walk up to someone and ask them? there is a reason dostoevsky wrote -- and edgar allen poe wrote the telltale heart.

>> there are several tools in the toolbox as they say when you are faced with the fact that we know that these weapons are going to be used in such carnage in mexico and the united states. we should have pulled every tool out of the toolbox. not just to make her case. r. k. should not prior to hear. there is a flow of firearms -- it up in the number one priority and we should've reached and that toolbox. we should have conducted interviews and we should have done interviews with surrounding people. we should have tracked these weapons better. we should have followed everything by the letter to stop them. >> have you ever heard of a law enforcement officer stopping someone for speeding when really they may have had another purpose in mind? >> i have heard that it happens. >> crossing the yellow line? >> sooner or later you are going to make a mistake. >> exactly and when you do a

lawful non-contextual car stop also opens up the full panoply of other search options like searching the vehicle or a pat-down. how about a proffer? is that in your toolbox to go to a united states attorney and say i would like to proffer this person? i would like to send a grand jury subpoena? it is the same week you conduct every other investigation other than this one, right? from shoplifting to murder. we do it all the same way except this one. >> correct. >> special agent newell, i happen to think this was ill-conceived from it's inception. you have testified repeatedly that purpose was to destroy, dismantle drug cartels. so i'm going to ask you again. how would this ever have succeeded? what was your purpose? how would we have known, hey this was a great investigation?

>> surya said the purpose of this investigation was to disrupt and dismantle of firearms trafficking organization. >> in mexico? >> in united states. not only straw purchasers the middlemen and transporters and financiers. >> the guns were going into mexico and you should have known this was an abject failure because that is not what you wanted, right? >> absolutely. >> so when he found out the first and went to mexico why did you not abort the investigation? because we were still putting the facts together. >> when is the very first time you knew or should have known that firearms were going to mexico? >> i believe it when we got the first traces i would advise the first traces which i believe was in november 2009. >> when did you abort the investigation? >> the investigation is ongoing. >> that is my point. you knew the weapons were going

to mexico. were you at some point going to bat special agent canino know about it? >> mr. canino knew about a. >> he knew that weapons were going into mexico? >> absolutely, yes. >> when you read going to let their mexican counterparts know about it? >> i am assuming they knew. one of the issues about that is there is only one field of vision in this country come only one that has a pgr representative and it and that is the mexican department of justice. in all my years of working with mexico i spent four years in bogotá colombia representing atf. i am very keen on the fact that we need to share information with their foreign law-enforcement. >> you testified earlier that you are going to turn the information over to mexican prosecutors and let them prosecute because i asked you where you also going to allow u.s. law enforcement officers to be extradited to mexico for breaking their law and he said no. my question to you is this. how in the world are you going

to get our brothers and sisters and law enforcement to trust -- why would you trust the prosecution if you don't trust the investigation? >> to answer your question about the drug cartel, the kingpin -- we did not have information until late in this case who that individual was and i abided with mr. canino we invited in december of 2010 as well as january mexican prosecutors to comment. i don't think that is ever been done before and i'm the one that requested it. >> digi debrief them on "fast and furious"? did you tell them the guns were going into mexico? >> well, yes. >> you told them when? >> my pgr representative i had in my office who has been there for two years new about this case. >> when the first gun showed up in mexico that you knew was from phoenix. the first one.

did you go interview the. >> no sir murray didn't. >> why not? >> again our strategy was that when going from years of experience you take out one straw purchaser. you are not having an effect on the greater organization. >> heavy over flipped a corporate in windows before? how do you do it without asking them? how do you do without undergoing them? >> it depends on a goal of the investigation. speier goal is to bring down an investigation. [inaudible] why didn't you go, why didn't you approach him? >> approach who? >> the straw purchaser. >> the goelzer in this case was to take out the organization we felt by just trying to flip one straw purchaser if in fact he did flip it would not affect the overall goal. >> the gentleman's time has expired. expired. we will have a second round. we now go to the gentleman from

idaho, mr. labrador. >> special agent canino i think i heard special agent newell say that you knew about this gun walking. can you please. >> i want to make it perfectly clear to you and the american people and mexican government, my family and my friends. at no time ever did i know that atf agents were following known, suspected gun traffickers one of which bought 700 guns and we knew about his gun showing up in mexico six weeks after we opened up that investigation. never, ever what i imagine that we were letting that happen. we have 4000 best occasions plus or minus with mexico u.s. nexus. there are guns coming in.

that is trafficking. the guns are coming into mexico. i have no clue that we were allowing these guns to go out there like this. like mr. gowdy said, there was no one -- interdiction to start any case. you have a toolbox. we have classes. jose teaches those trafficking classes. i have been to them. it is like building a house. you started the bottom and you try to work your way up. at one point you will only reach so far and then you come in and you have a meeting and you say okay how can we advance this? you meet with the u.s. attorney. from what i see here, none of this was done or if it was, it wasn't very effective. >> so when did you first realize the gun walking allegations which are? >> april. >> this year? >> yes, i mean i was starting to lean that way and then i was

that atf your headquarters for mating and i sat down with mr. levin and he convinced me. >> did you come across any specific evidence to prove atf had taken part in these actions? >> one more time? >> did you come across any specific evidence to prove atf had taken part in these actions? >> from the totality of circumstances and speaking with different agents yeah. the guns were showing up in mexico. >> did you review any documents? >> you know, sarah, i visited mr. leadman and i saw, took a look at the management line. if i read it correctly, there were three instances in the first two pages where we walk away from guns. at that point i was so disgusted i didn't want to look at the

case filing any more. >> when was that? >> that was in mid-april. of this year. >> why were you so upset with this information? >> because it goes against everything we have taught. like i was explaining earlier, you don't do that. we are not taught to do that. from the first day we walk into the academy all the way until you leave this job, like aron said, it is not a recognized investigative technique. this is not a special case. this just a trafficking case that we do. this is what we do. amongst other things trafficking is what we do especially on the southwest border. this wasn't a one of. this wasn't a whodunit. this was you know, this was the. >> it was a basic case? >> yeah. >> like you do everyday?

>> exactly. >> special agent newell, do you know who kevin o'reilly is? >> yes, sir. >> what is the nature of your relationship with him? bif known kevin for probably 10 or 12 years. >> how often do you communicate with him? >> i haven't communicated with him in a while but probably three or four times a year, something like that. may be more with him reaching out to me. >> isn't that a bit unusual having direct e-mail contact with a national security -- of the white house? >> how many times did you talk to him about this case? >> the specifics of this case? ..

>> so, mcmahon, you took responsibility this morning here for the actions of and i appreciate that. who at the highest level -- i can't imagine this is something you decided to do on your own. did you communicate with the highest level about this case? >> i communicated to my chin of command within atf. we are all very much aware of the investigation and what was going on. >> who was aware of this investigation was occurring and that the guns were being blocked to mexico if you can answer that question time is expired but go ahead. >> no one was aware guns or walking. my level or above me we are

getting caught up in the definition of walking but whatever the definitions are no one from my level of know of any gun walking. >> i thank the gentleman. we go to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mcmahon, i had the opportunity to read your opening statement. i've been out of here and first fully appreciate your service and of her stand your remorse with what is going on here but got to talk to you a little about the interview you had. and i would like to review some if i could get slight six brought up this is a transcript of the interview that you had and when you were asked whether you read the lawyer to applications for the fast and furious and you responded no, i

did not; do you recall that question and answer? >> i do. >> when you were asked if it was your job to sign off on the wiretap applications, you stated no, i never signed off on a memo for the wiretap publication; and it was your statement then and still today? >> yes, it is. >> slide seven, if we can show slight seven. okay. this is a memorandum dated february 5th, 2005, that addressed to you from the group supervisor, phoenix group seven. the first line states this memorandum serves to request authorization to initiate a title three cellular telephone intercept. it's addressed to you. do you recall that memorandum? >> i recall seeing it recently, yes. >> you don't recall seeing it before? >> i do not. >> okay. >> slide eight, if we can get that up there and this is a and

the e-mail from william newell to you on february, 2010. attached to this e-mail was an e-mail with a memo as we saw them pass the slide and the e-mail states attaches the covered memo requesting authorization to conduct the intercept on the suspect strike force firearm out of the phoenix and tunnell the fast and furious im fedex and that to you. do you recall receiving that? >> i don't recall that i obviously received that, yes. i don't specifically recall receiving this e-mail, nope. >> do you recall seeing the attachment? >> no, i do not, and i think the e-mail records show they were not able to scan the attachment because it was large and they said they were going to fedex it. >> who said that to you? >> it says that in the e-mail. >> it tells you it was too large? >> it says i could not stand the

actual affidavit deutsch to its size so i am sending it so scanning it means attaching it to this e-mail. >> this is the request for a wiretap? >> this has the request for a wiretap attached to the e-mail. >> it's actually an affidavit prepared at the u.s. attorney's office. >> okay. this is an affidavit by the special agent mcalister in support of the application for authorization to intercept wired communications and attached for your review. the signature block is for schaefer but there's someone else's signature. do you recognize that? that's my signature. >> so you were aware of this request for the wiretap? >> absolutely. >> having seen these documents now is their anything would you like to clarify in your testimony or interview at all?

>> i know that we forwarded the application for the wiretap through the legal counsel process to get their approval before i went back to the oeo and meen justice. >> but you just testified minutes ago that you were not -- don't recall ever requesting authorization for the center said. >> i said i never recalled receiving this request. i did get the actual application for the wiretaps and then they were forwarded. >> in one of those requests did you authorize? >> the last slide you put up from mark, that would transmit the actual application for the wiretap, yes. >> okay. >> in your interview were you asked about this? >> not this specifically, nope.

>> did you volunteer? >> nope. >> any reason why not? >> i'm trying to figure out what i need to volunteer. i told the staff i don't recall -- i did recall receiving applications but did not -- >> you don't play to mr. kumar door knowledge about any of this? >> i iran played mr. kumar my knowledge? that's not correct. i told them everything i knew about this. >> was that in march of 2010? >> it was throughout this investigation. >> i see my time is expired. >> i ask the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. >> with the gentleman yield 30 seconds? >> yes, sir. >> i am one of the mom lawyers appears that's why i introduce the qualified people early on. but as a layperson, it looks like you had an intimate part in the wiretap request. your signature was part of a request process, yet when we ask about your being involved in

them, you did not volunteer to tell about this part. you simply relied on you didn't actually sign the affidavit; is that what you're saying? the truth was you didn't sign the affidavit even though you signed this document and all other documents and worse and other documents that you may not remember? >> i signed this document that transmit the application for the wiretap to the counsel's office for that mistake is not doing a faeroe review of the documents that were coming across my desk. i accept full responsibility for that. >> with the gentle lady from new york like to have a round of questions? >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you very much. i thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing and all of you for your service to our country. we appreciate it. we've had a series of hearings

and i regret i was also in a hearing we are having in the financial services that i am the ranking member on so i had to be there. so i wasn't here for most of it. but mr. cummings is going to brief me completely on everything that happened. on one of our prior hearings, we had a special agents that basically testified that the enforcement was not strong enough without was one of the problems of the border that there wasn't an expressed wall against trafficking and guns, and that a lot of times were to use the terms of one of the agency called him to phyllis, that you couldn't do anything with it and they said that the penalties even in trafficking guns and serious offenses and straw purchases and all kind of things really ended up in more than probation so therefore they didn't even feel like pursuing the convictions because the

penalties were so relaxed, and it was inadequate even to detour for the illegal purchases, and it wasn't strong enough to encourage the cooperation of the facts when they were cooperating they had to have stronger laws. so, i put in a bill with other members of this committee to make trafficking and guns a federal crime, and i'd like to ask special agent mcmahon and newell whether or not you think this would happen in combating violence, drug trafficking, illegal drug trafficking at the border. >> currently we have some laws that are in place that we are using and then forcing to the best of our ability. i think any extra tool is going to be helpful and when it gets more specific as i think some of

the legislation is going to present would be more specific and think things obviously easier. >> you think it would disrupt the flow of guns on the border? t think would help in that way? >> i think a tool like that would help, yes. >> newell, would you also like to testify? >> is in a matter of fact i believe the surface in july 2009 published a report which said, i believe the title was drug-trafficking in the southwest border and the talk about the need for a specific statute to address the trafficking of firearms by a group of individuals that would aid will enforcement being able to address the specific activity that is not illegal. so any toole we would have to assist in that we welcome. >> is everyone else on the panel agreed if you disagreed would you like to express why? does everyone agree that this would be told would be helpful?

>> i would somewhat disagree as i stated earlier. i think the line in buying the stock purchases by definition itself by any weapon or purchasing or obtaining a weapon for the transfer to some other third-party in and of itself is trafficking. we have some personnel to give outstanding courses throughout my career and the last few years so that we provide the training to state and locals as well as our federal partners. and they are of itself distracting and we as we promoted during the sessions. i would agree with you that by definition a straw purchaser has no criminal history, therefore we have to increase the penalty for those folks that are actually making the initial purchase. >> that's what the bill does, and all i think oftentimes i'll listen to the people that are in the combat on the streets trying to get the job done, which is our special agents and several panels including today.

they have said that a strong anti-gun trafficking bill would help them do their job, so i think we should listen to them. one of the testimonies in the last hearing, one of the agents said that they were military type weapons, that it wasn't -- no one wants to inhibit a hunter getting a gun to go hunting with or someone to protect themselves, but these were the type of weapons like the ak-47 used in military combat, and they were training and trading in the deadly guns, and understand the need protective equipment that has to be reinforced for the military tide of guns, and the law the was put in place to report on rifles that are being sold also the testified helpful, and i would like to hear what your view is

from the front line, mr. newell and mr. mcmahon. >> we were asked earlier and what degree the demand would be helpful for us, yes. >> is there any other tool that this congress could give the would help you save lives? we are all for the second amendment of a lawful person to own a gun, but for a criminal and a drug cartel to have easy access, i think the number was 40,000 deaths -- >> the time is expired. is there a question? >> i just want to know if there's other tools we can give you that would help you combat on the front line the illegal sale of guns that is leading to the violence from the border. >> i testified before congress and number of times, and it is not my place to ask -- i know we

will do what we can with the resources and the laws that this congress provides less. >> with that we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. and this is the second round, folks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. newell, i am still sort of struggling to find out who knew what and when in the form of the not only the formulation of the process, but the approvals as well. so it's my understanding that this was conceptualized in november of 09, is that correct, fast and furious? >> no, sir. the investigation began in november, 2009 under the name of j dub chambers who was identified as one of the more prolific straw purchasers. as the case progressed, and i will say that in november, mid november 2009 when the special agent started looking into what

appeared obviously to be some connected activity in terms of the straw purchases, she did a phenomenal job of putting a bunch of pieces of the puzzle together and noticed one individual by the name of jacob chambers seemed to be at that time one of the more prolific straw purchasers. at that time when she put all the pieces together she knew it was like 350 guns that had been purchased by this group. as the case progressed through december and in early january, we were working on the strike force i think she realized -- >> why did you begin the process of having this be a strike force case? >> mid january. >> mid january? >> we submitted in november jim laurie, 2010. >> am i correct from your testimony -- i just heard you make a comment with respect to you are an intelligence analyst among other things isn't that correct? one of the things that you do is try to take a global perspective on how they may be moving in the united states and mexico and

anywhere? support of this is to follow the flow of guns. your testimony was within six weeks of the beginning of this other law enforcement providers provided us with information in december from nine because you were concerned about guns that were in mexico been found in mexico. so in essence, december 09 prior to the beginning of fast and furious, you as the analyst as identifying for people that guns are being trafficked into mexico that you are concerned coming from phoenix. estimate what kind of explain that a little bit and bring things in perspective. in november 20, of a nine, it was an introduction by the

mexican authorities in which there was approximately 41, 42 weapons firearms recovered. the information we got to the assistance advice so forth down there they covered the interviews -- >> was this november of 09? >> yes. >> so they were seized in mexico and you are just beginning this in january which means you're moving up the chain getting approvals from other people beyond you, special agent mcmahon and newell, approvals to pursue this. you know that they have already had left phoenix and have gone into mexico at that point in time. >> you are correct. >> that in january he began this you were aware they were trafficked from phoenix into mexico? >> to be clear on that i think that he has better information. i think it was seven or fast and furious.

37 were just and furious. and we did submit in mid january and approval of the fast and furious plan. >> what was the plan then? unit at this point in time before you testified that there was no part of any plan that guns would be known to be going to mexico. now you're telling me that you are part of bringing this because he believed the guns are going to mexico and guns are going well. so at some point in time, i am trying to get clear when it was that you are now participating in helping to get authority from a prior investigation. as you said that this multiple agencies that are participating in this. >> as i said, in mid january of 2010, we submitted approval the investigation which is eventually was approved by the southwest region of houston i believe the first week of february. >> you testified before right here today including from the

doj deputy attorney general. those are your words. at what point in time are you aware that the deputy attorney general became aware of any aspect of this investigation? >> i'm not aware of what time it became aware. islamic when do you believe that he became aware? >> i'm not sure. i believe it was earlier this year. >> but you stated that from the beginning -- these are your words -- this is being conceived commodores testimony today, it was not just -- i asked you where this came from and and your subsequent testimony you identified that this is from doj, the deputy attorney general. this is a conception phase, mr. newell, the conception phase. your word, the deputy attorney general. so, when did he know, what did he know? >> sir, what i mentioned that the deputy attorney general is

that in 2009 it died off in 2010 a formalized strategy on the doj strategy combat and southwest border violence mexican drug cartel came out, which highlighted among other things out to attack different levels of criminality by the mexican drug cartels pete firearms, drugs, to be cut. when it came to firearms there was a strategy which said mayor interdiction is not -- is not the only solution. working with the coal located strike force is imperative we attack the interest and command control infrastructure of the organization to have a lasting impact. it's something along those lines. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the former united states attorney. at this point the chair would recognize the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the full committee, mr. cummings. >> special agent newell, i would like to pick up one last question. who -- he testified the

advancement period with screen agents and local supervisors and local supervisor gross, haven't you come to you remember saying that? >> yes, sir. >> and so, what did you mean by that? go ahead. because we have a lot of questions. how this came about, and you said that seems to be leading us somewhere and i just want to see where we are going. >> agents in the field, the pursuit of evidence of some investigation, some sort of, of the be that the firearms case, explosives case, will open an investigation with their supervisors into whatever they believe to be some sort of criminality by one or more divisions. that is how the cases initiated and how this case was initiated under the name of j dub chambers special agent, you testified that you are a senior trainer and instructor for the agents but have never heard of them on interdiction and lobbying as an

approved tactic. is that just not done? >> no, sir, i've never heard of it. >> mr. mcmahon, did anyone at the atf headquarters instruct group seven to conduct the investigation in the manner that we know ended up being conducted? and to not interdict the weapons for the purchasers. >> no, sir, we did not. >> that's a fact? >> no, sir. >> so this wasn't a new policy. >> no, sir, it was not a new doj policy. i think we have to realize guns to mexico from the u.s. has been a problem an awful long time. we've been trying to make an impact and it's something we are continuing to try to do. >> going back to you, special agent, you know, we listen to all the testimony. this is what it boils down to.

you've got -- i listen to your definition of walking and you are basically talking about the commission and it sounds like we have an instance here of omission. in other words, failing to stop the guns and going through. so, but there is something bigger than that. and that is it seems like we need to balance knowing the guns are going into mexico, and this grand plan to try to get to the cartel, and the whole idea if we'll over it and they don't go and in other words they go in, let them go in and stand by and watch them, where these in the up and the harm that when they are in the wrong hands what they will do. was there ever a balancing because that seems like that's what this boils down to. i mean, i think that is why the

agents are so upset. they are trying to figure out did anybody say okay, this is going against the policy that we normally do. our number-one goal is to make sure the weapons don't get into the hands of the wrong people. but then they are trying to get their arms around was there some greater cause that was worth it? the risk to see these actually land in the hands of the wrong people? can you comment on that? do you understand the question? >> one of the things i said in my opening statement is i think i readily admit that there should have been more if it was incumbent upon me there should have been more through the case, risk assessment to determine the investigation. because as i have said before, the whole plan was to take up the organization but i realize in retrospect there were times i should have conducted more risk

assessment. >> so your fellow agents i think that you would agree that if you lead to the balancing situation you probably would not have gone along with this the way things went, is that right? in other words, the omission you know what bothers me? you've got agents here who are very emotional about this, and i appreciate these are honorable people who put their lives on the line every day, and then they've got you who is more of a supervisor type, and they are using a sort of military-style operation what are you supposed to do? with the folks over top of you tell you but the music looking at the points over top of you and say what is this about? you can comment. >> like i said, congressman, my opening statement was i realize not retrospect there should have been assessment. i acknowledge that and that is one of the mistakes made i should have had for risk assessment throughout the case.

>> i thank the gentleman from maryland. a special agent newell, they're has been some talk this morning and this afternoon about tools in the toolbox so to speak. what is the penalty for the naim 24c, first offense? what is the penalty for the second offense? >> i believe it's 15 years. >> the third offense? >> 40. >> and so, you are quickly approaching 60 years with 924c, and this wasn't the case, right? >> what is the de stand for in oside? - 24c is a statute that prescribes the use of a firearm during the commission of a drug-trafficking offense, or the other title 18 offenses, right? so, this had to have a drug connection or it wouldn't have been a case. >> actually, i believe in 2008, 2009 thus osidef issued guidance

which said that you can in fact use the osidef program to attack the organizations because the other related crimes. >> these were drug cartels though, right? >> the organization? >> was related to a drug cartel, yes. >> what is the maximum for the lining and buying? >> the statutory maximum i believe is five years. >> what is the minimum for the 924? what is the stitchery maximum for 924e? >> it could be up to life. >> so you could get up to life, you can get over 60 years and pherae for the 924c and you don't think you have enough tools in the toolbox? >> i did not say that, sir. >> do you believe you have enough in the toolbox? >> the laws we have now are the ones we have to use. any additional would be welcome. >> when you began the sentence come you didn't get this from me, what does that mean to you?

>> it just means that you didn't get it from me. >> that is kind of a plea, isn't it because you are getting it from them. so it's -- what do you mean by that? you didn't get this from me. i'm referring to your e-mail. >> obviously he was a friend of mine and its -- i shouldn't have been sending that obviously i recognize that. >> what you mean you didn't get this from me, does that mean you should have been talking to him about it? >> not that i shouldn't a been talking about it. he's my friend and asked for information and i provided it to him. >> why wasn't inappropriate to give it to him? why would you preface it by saying you didn't get this from me? was it an improper communication? >> it wasn't improper. >> why would you preface by that? >> he's been a friend of mine for a long time and asked for

information to riggins so i gave him information that proper and improper use of the term and phrase. >> okay. i would yield my time to the chairman. >> so, following up on where he was and i apologize, we are trying to keep going during the vote -- yes, you have one minute left. >> actually i have 46 seconds left. the -- use it something to somebody because they were a friend. the work on the white house on the national security team who requested something about a rather esoteric symbol investigation. why do you think that he asked you for that information that you didn't get these from me, why do you think he asked for that information?

>> well, sir, the way that i read the e-mail now in my recollection he wasn't asking the but a specific investigation, he was asking about the gun runner in pact team over the summer. >> why do you think he was asking? >> if i recall that e-mail, he was asking for information to brief his boss for preparation for a trip to mexico. in our efforts in our area along what we were doing to conduct the trafficking and other issues >> of cases this is september, 2010. listened is already a field program you had recognized needed to be shut down and there was 30, 60, 90 day shutdown some time ago was in this after you had been frustrated by the u.s. attorney who couldn't seem to end this? >> at this time, sir, i believe our case at the u.s. attorney's now for about probably two to three weeks. >> let me go to another line of

questioning because -- i've got these agents who don't see the world the way that you and your other experience see it and i want to understand the difference. as you saw this as necessary, you saw that you had to make your case and use all that 30, 60, 90 days went by even after you recognized an awful lot had walked. you may not have said that he walked them but they walked. they are in mexico distributed probably so 2,000 weapons have gone, and you still think this program was a good program, write? okay. >> so, you would do this program and? >> i said earlier in my opening statement i would do several things differently. >> unit to a program in which you contact the licensed gun sales, organizations, tell them in response to what they believe

are suspected straw purchasers to go ahead and install video cameras, watch these people by, and follow them to a location and then wait to see where they turn up. summit would be one of the things in the risk assessment i would seriously consider changing. >> what about the american people? musette risk assessment. that sounds like the doctor telling you that you have non-ha pashtuns lymphoma and there's a 0% chance, but we think we can operate and give you an extra month. risk assessment. mrs. pallone, ms. norton, they are radically against the second amendment. they absolutely positively do not want anyone having any guns. to say straight forward they would respect the second amendment but they've never seen a gun limitation they dealt want. in your case, your agency has a special, special obligation to

maintain the second amendment, the law abiding citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, stop the bad people from getting them. you said you need more laws. i'm going to come to the other agents for a moment. mr. canino? >> if the u.s. attorney agreed to prosecute every case, or in the state where there was strong hand on walls, if he or she only gave up that prosecution of the state agreed to prosecute what we dramatically reduce gun violence on both sides of the border if there was 100% prosecution of existing laws? >> eliminate gun violence? >> i said greatly reduced. >> i don't think. >> i don't think federalizing >> of think federalizing street crime is the answer.

i think there's plenty of gun laws. some of them better than others, some of them there is no deterrence, there is no significant times people are facing and that is the frustrating part. but, in my opinion the political reality is right now there is no appetite or will for any substantial flecha legislation. and i can't worry about that. i have to worry about catching bad guys and i'm going to do the best i can with life got. >> you happen to be south of the san diego border right now. i'm just north of it. president bush fired carol lamb to a great extent on my request. i don't worry that the of the eight attorneys fired. i helped get her fired because she wouldn't prosecute trafficking human beings or gun crimes. she basically said turn them over to the state and then

walked away knowing that in most cases they wouldn't prosecute. does it make a difference if you have the u.s. attorney at each of those border areas who take trafficking the human beings, trafficking drugs and chucking the guns seriously enough to basically not let anyone walk away not being prosecuted just because they might only get six months or a year. >> yes, sir, unequivocally. >> federal agents, police officers on the federal task force, agents in the atf in my opinion we have a tremendous effect on crime. however, cases don't get prosecuted, when they languish as i said in my opening statement, and the cases are either they climb or given the

minimal sentence doesn't send the message of people engaged in this type of activity, take for example gun trafficking. when you have individuals that are not prosecuted, however maybe there was a search warrant served and guns were taken from them, all they are going to do is tell the next guy watch out for these guys that do this because this is how i got caught. but there is no deterrent. we need to prosecute people and put them in prison for this and we need to put them there for a while. >> special agent, in your experience, if you have somebody did your right, you've got them with a weapon, let's take our 740 man, if you said we've got you, we know where you've been selling if you don't give a testimony right now, if you don't roll, you are not leaving here and you were going away for a very long time.

in your experience is very high likelihood of a are going to be essentially flat the next guy up in return for the minimum charge of buying a plane, is that an effective tool when you had what we had in this case we knew that he had sold to a trafficker and we have hundreds, in the jury is going to consider him part of the trafficking charge you can bring, and we get evidence of exactly who he sought to switch to tell him we already know who you sold to but if you are not willing to testify we are going to put you away with him and by the way, people have died in mexico and we are going to allow you to be extradited to mexico, and i am not asking you for your techniques. i'm giving you the in cis1 because the way we are not getting into sources and methods. but does that work? >> yes, depending each individual is different, but it's done correctly, and respectfully and you treat the person like a human being and to

tell them hay these are the choices -- >> so it's really i don't want to hit you with a stick but i will? >> pretty much. >> let me go to mr. leadmon for a second. march 5th, 2010 you did a briefing at atf headquarters on the operation fast and furious. at that time did you brief over a thousand weapons had been sold? >> yes, sir, 1,026. >> did you in that presentation brief and show the link between telstra purchasers and -- the cartel? >> identified the cartel and briefed and showed the links toward the seizure in mexico and how they moved over to the juarez area. >> was it clear that when you gave the briefing that everyone in the room guns were going to gun dealers and arizona and then

going into mexico? >> absolutely. >> who was in the room at that time? >> everybody in the senior management field operations except for mr. nelson. >> were their representatives at the department of justice? >> joe hooley. -- of justice was informed that the guns were walking? >> i don't think he was very but he was there. >> did anyone express concern in this meeting that the number of weapons appearing in mexico or the number of weapons brought by the straw purchasers seemed to be too high? >> yes, someone on the of the end of the in the video because we had a videoconference, i believe it was somebody in the dallas field division who voiced that concern and there was some discussion. >> and we also have a memo that says we have to slow this down basically at the same time. so at a thousand it was too

many. let me ask the two defenders of this program -- and by sorry but that does appear how your role today has been. did it ever occur that either one of you after mr. leadmon's march 1044 that you could let some of these block and intertek others meaning, quite frankly, when somebody had already bought 100 of them and transported them they were not going to sell to somebody different. you knew it was a straw purchaser, he usually had one customer she made the sale once, twice, 20 times, did it ever occur to you to go ahead and at least stop a few times as you said to make it expensive by intercepting some of them, just blinded by dumb luck they had to figure and this is just me talking but i think that life lived this long enough the cartels have to realize that some point you were helping them buy guns because they were having a good batting averages

and that troup lacks the fact that these guys were not interdicting the guns almost had to be conspicuous at some point couldn't you have at least stopped some of these guns to make it look more real? >> as i suddenly opening statement that is one of the things i would do different. >> we are going to take a short recess. there will be little bit of voting. we will come back and i know you've been patient. during the recess restrooms are available to you. i would suggest that on that side there is a restroom you don't have to go out and be accustomed by cameras and so on. but what i would like you to do, special agent newell and special agent mcmahon, but for all of you, i would like each of you if you would agree to give me that the list of the things that you would do differently, and special agent seat -- newell, i would like your list and mr. mcmahon because you over salles and you have said some things.

but to the four of you would you be willing to give me what would be done differently? i know the easy thing is i wouldn't have done the damn stupid thing, but short of that, the case by case breakdown of what would have to be different if this would be done because this is the committee on oversight and reform. the minority suggested that we have a bunch more gun laws and maybe that will have been someday, but i am looking for answers we can do to get effective work that you need to do, effective prosecution and defense legislation we are happy to look at it and put it into the mix by looking at that kind of reform that doesn't just assume a stronger gun law collectively enforced by the u.s. attorney's to lose interest in these cases is necessary the and the only answer. with that, we stand in recess until about five minutes after the last vote.

>> okay. we are now recognizing the chairman for his questions. first of all, i want to start off by saying that the atf, the fbi, cia, all of our intelligence agencies, we have high regard for all of you, and i know some of my colleagues indicated today we were beating you over the head. we are not. we are investigating this issue and we are certainly not investigating the good work that you do. i know that some of you have been -- your colleagues have been killed, some of two injured. we know you lay your lives on the line for us. and so you have our respect and

admiration for what you do. now, let me just say to the mr. mcmahon and mr. newell. you know that you are under oath. estimate absolutely. >> both of you know that. but i want to know is do you know who was involved in the decision making process to start this whole program? >> this was not a program, this was a criminal investigation. >> do you know who started toward suggested this criminal investigation? >> the agents on the street. >> someone said this is what we are going to do. who started it? where did you get the instructions to do this? >> we don't get our agents instructions to do things. they produce cases on their own. >> what you are telling me now is this investigation that we are talking about, what's the name of it again, what's it called? fast and furious.

this just came from an agent in the field and that was it, nobody else had anything to do with it. you didn't get a letter of instruction or anything like that. >> what about this you say you got a memo from a deputy attorney general about this. what was that? >> i believe bill newell was referencing regarding the strategy on how we are going to combat -- >> who was the deputy attorney general? denied that one came from the general ogden. when did that come? >> i have nothing to do with fast and furious. >> what did have to do with? >> the government strategy to help combat the violence that is going on in mexico. >> did have anything to do with the weapons that were going on? >> absolutely. estimate it did have something to do with what we were talking about? >> yes, it did. >> his name was what? >> i believe it was david bogden. >> you said in testimony that there were a number of other

agencies involved in this whole investigation process. you mentioned the irs customs, the fbi and so forth. remember that? what were the names of the people involved in that? >> i think that he answered the questions regarding the operation of the case -- >> what i want is the name of the people involved in the investigation from each agency. >> i don't know the names. >> somebody knows. t you know, mr. newell? >> i know a couple of the names. >> we want those names and the reason we won those names is i'm going to ask the chairman to talk about the continuing this investigation to find out how we involved everybody was coming and why it went on as long as it did when we knew that in 2009 this kind of thing was going on to read if there were irs agents, dea, customs or others we want to know who was involved so we can question them as well. i want their names come to you have their names right now?

and you don't remember the names? >> i remember one of the names. >> i believe the i.c.e. agent assigned to the case was a young man by the name of wallingford -- leyna french. >> france, sir. >> how about the other agencies comedy you remember the names, were there other people involved? >> i don't know the names. >> can you find the names for us? can you get those names for us? will you get them for us? >> absolutely. >> every single one of those names from the various agencies involved in the whole thing we would like to have their names and titles and the agencies they work for. and you will get that for us? >> i will do my best, yes. >> i don't want you to do your best. i want the names can you get the names? you do know who they are and how to get their names? >> i will find out who they are,

yes. >> would the gentleman yield? would you also include the dates that they were read into this program with sufficient specificity that they would understand the details of how the gun following that you say is and then walking occurred because we don't want just names of people on the list, we want the people who were read into the program. and the dates that they were involved. >> if i could clarify the point. >> before you go clarifying i want to make sure i get all of this, mr. chairman, i want to make absolutely sure we have the names, dates, times, places they were involved in this investigation so we can trace it all the way back to its origin and see where we went and who was involved and how all of the weapons got down into mexico and whether or not somebody ought to hire up in the justice department or the food chain might have been involved and the only way we can get that

information is from you or the other people involved in the investigation from these other agencies. so i just want to say one more time this is very important that you understand that you are telling us right now you will get us this information, you can get the names, times, dates and places we need and you will do that. very good. i want to make sure you are under oath and i understand that. >> we now go to the gentleman from cleveland, mr. kucinich. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. newell, june 15th, 2011, 3 agents under durkan and testified before this committee and the outlined very serious allegations that prompted this investigation. the line agents told us that as part of operation fast and

furious one, they were instructed to cut surveillance of suspected straw purchasers. to, they were ordered to forgo the arrests of straw purchasers, and number three, they were prohibited from seizing or interdicting weapons from the straw purchasers on several occasions when they believed they have the lawful authority to do so. mr. newell come these are serious allegations. but in your transcribed interview with the committee, you said you never heard these complaints before they became public in february this year. is that right? here's what you said. to the best of my recollection i don't remember any time ever being advised there were discords among the agents. i became aware of that when the documents were released that i saw and what was probably early february something like that of this year. is that information what you expected or received earlier? >> i would have hoped to have

received that, yes. >> as we are responsible for bringing these agents concerned to your attention? >> the fall of the chain of command i would hope that information had gotten to me, yes. >> who specifically would have been responsible? there are people in your chain of command -- >> if they had voiced those concerns to their supervisor, i would hope -- and they did not get response the felt that reprieve from the supervisor then obviously they have the right to go over his or her head and go to the second line and then so on from there. >> obviously the committee has names of people in those line of command so special agent mcmahon, in your interview you said the same thing, you didn't hear about the allegations until they were reported in the press, is that right? >> that's correct. islamic is the information you would have expected to receive sooner? did you feel we should have received it sooner?

>> i would hope if the concerns expressed this fleet on were out early on i would hope there was such urgency it should of been brought to our attention earlier. >> the line agents testified they made their concerns knowing ticker supervisor that they would vote. yet, he too, told the committee that he knew nothing about the allegations. he said, quote, i don't recall people coming to me with those concerns, and of quote. mr. mcmahon, as the line agent supervisor, should he know about the allegations? >> i'm assuming if they were expressed they should have known about them, yes. >> if the committee has apparently identified a conflict in the testimony it is the line agents who are having difficulty being able to communicate the truth or their supervisors having that difficulty. what steps, mr. mcmahon committed the atf's management take to make sure the headquarters were aware of the

concerns the direct supervisors are not responsive to and can they do that without an effect bringing upon themselves some sanctions for going over the head of the line supervisor? >> i believe they can. the process we have said that in the headquarters allowed. we have an ombudsman program, we have obviously the chain of command anywhere in there. i think the director every time he's actually been out to visit offices he's told people about his open door line of communications. he receives e-mails from the line agents. i try to do the same thing. my visits to the field divisions that i oversee make yourself as open as possible to everyone within the bureau. >> i thank the gentleman and just want to say we appreciate it very difficult and challenging work that every one of the agents has to carry out, so i'm sure that you can understand the questions that

have been raised about the conduct of this particular observation that things don't fit and when they fit it makes it difficult for those in the congress to be liable to defend the kind of support that they want to maintain for the bureau so i want to thank you for being here and i yield back >> i thank the gentleman from ohio at this point in time i will give myself five minutes for further questioning. when we last left your talking about law enforcement partners providing you information in december of 09 that had given you concern about guns that had actually showed up in mexico; is that correct? >> they didn't provide it to me.

they provided it to the agency and was routed to me putative >> when using other law enforcement partners is this outside of the atf? can you identify with other partners at this point in time in december of 09 were part of this investigation? >> they were not part to my knowledge, but they were running parallel. >> i don't want to get into their investigation even though they wrapped up the investigation. i want to say february or so is 2010. >> they became a part of the case isn't that right? in the dea? >> there were several investigations that mr. levin is talking about is the information on the seizure came from the dea to us and then it was routed. speaking to you. islamic up that point in time

while you were in the field doing this, were you aware of any other agency that had information pertinent to this that you believed was not being shared with you? >> the only other agency that we worked with and we actually used them to a certain extent to conduct interviews with us or on our behalf. >> for clarification that investigation was not originating out of mexico. that was a u.s. investigation. the dea was doing out of the phoenix area. >> thank you. a special agent, i want to go back again our special agent mcmahon, you just responded partially to the question and unfortunately you were not allowed to give the full answer but i was intrigued by what you were beginning to say, when again, there was a once more question about the genesis of the case and you began to talk about the agents in the field the agents were the ones that

began to make the cases. can you explain what you mean by that? >> the way that it works as our agents are the one that conduct the investigation and generate the investigations and should get approval from the first line of the supervisor of which investigations to open or not. >> what were the investigating? straub purchasing and general? >> when you have a division group, the division usually breaks down the group's into specific types of cases. you might have an explosives group or firearms trafficking group. if you were out in the field we only have one group -- >> the agents working on this case -- >> they were assigned to a gun runner group assigned to -- >> at what point did they take it up higher to the chain as part of this, do they include the assistance in the united states attorney was their insistence appointed to that group? >> i'm not sure if it was appointed to that group but we try to get into the case as early as possible.

>> do you recollect it that he was assigned to this case? from the very beginning. did that attorney to your knowledge communicate with the united states attorney about this case? >> to my knowledge i don't know. >> but the case began somewhere in november of 09 and we have testimony that by december 09 there was already concern about scores of weapons being recovered in mexico. what was the response of the united states attorney to that of the legion? >> as outlined in the january briefing they felt there wasn't enough evidence at that time to secure the urgency or the prosecution to continue monitoring. >> the continue monitoring but were they aware and did they believe the guns ultimately thousands continue to be trafficked with the approval of

the assistant united states attorney? >> i'm not sure exactly what they were aware of but i know they were informed -- >> any point in time did you get a visit from anybody and who was the highest person that visited you from the department of justice with respect to this matter? >> to a certain extent, it would have been dead doj contingent during the summer or spring and i believe there was kevin carlisle. lenni brewer visited -- >> the head of the criminal division is that not right? >> when did he visit you in mexico with respect to this case? >> i would have to check -- >> what is your recollection? the summer would be after we already know the thousands of gun has been trafficked. >> yes. >> was that communicated to him? >> by mechem and no. islamic by anybody to your

knowledge? >> no, sir. >> my time is past. >> at this point in time the chair would recognize the gentlelady, mrs. maloney. >> i think you for recognizing me, and i am deeply concerned that while i was on the floor voting that the chairman, for whom i have tremendous respect, made derogatory remarks about mrs. norton and myself, and as i hear i would like to quote what was said, they are radically against the second amendment. they absolutely positively do not want anyone having a gun. they are pretty straightforward about it. they say these respect the second amendment but they've never seen a gun limitation the amount like.

i would like to say that i support the second amendment. and i support legal guns or spokesman for hunters, for self-defense. just recently one of our colleagues, leonard boswell, was literally someone broke into his home and he saw that his life was in danger, his grandson took a legal registered gun and got the intruder out of the home. i respect the right to go and legal guns for self-defense. for other reasons, but i do not support illegal guns that are fueling the drug war and putting life at risk. in testimony before this committee, the -- is told that 40,000 people have died in the last five years on the border of mexico. and it's -- we've put forth a

simple statute that would prohibit gun trafficking in illegal guns to people who want to use them for each illegal purposes. i think that is respecting law enforcement, helping small enforcement, and protecting the lives on the both sides of the border. and i must also say that the agents who testified and were called by the majority to testify, they indicated that this would help them do their job and help them protect innocent people in mexico and in the united states of america. and i just really wanted to clarify that since i feel that mrs. norton and myself were attacked unfairly, and i do not think that a legitimate debate or ideas or legislation should

be attacked in this unfair way. so i just would like to clarify that. would the gentlelady yield? i stand corrected if you are in the second amendment, and i will not consider the same with ms. norton who said my entire side of the ogle was owned by the nra and some of hers or somebody in the district of columbia continues to support basically this being a gun-free zone in violation of the second amendment, but i teach you at your word and by sorry that i exaggerated to include you. >> i want to thank the chairman for his apology. i can attest to the fact, mr. chairman, that when the gentlelady and i introduced our recent bill, she basically said what she just said, that she had no problem, and i think that there is a lot of confusion with guns and those of us who have

seen over and over again the result of gun violence, those of us who go to the funerals and listened to the agents' who big to make sure that we help them because they are fighting weapons of war, and that is what we are concerned about. the agent came and said some of them said it today. so i yield backend i want to thank the chair. >> i want to add i think that we both agree on both sides of the aisle that mistakes were made in the handling of the operation fast and furious and we are legitimately trying to get answers and look at this. but the larger issue that i feel is in danger of possibly being overlooked is the flow of illegal weapons. we are not talking about regular guns. in the testimony from the agents, they call them military-style weapons. they were ak-47s, very special

devotee rifles. so these are not normal guns, these are military guns, and this is a even larger issue the fast and furious is to stop the flow of illegal guns and i believe on both sides of the ogle we can agree that illegal guns going into america or mexico is something we need to address and stop as quickly as possible. >> we now go to the gentleman from texas for his round. >> thank you very much i want to bring this back to where we were going with the investigating operation fast and furious as opposed to discussing the merits of any proposed new gun regulations oregon loss. let me ask some of the gentleman from atf, if you remember the lessons we learned from 9/11, we found we probably would have had

a better chance to stop the attacks on the world trade center had the various organizations within the government had been communicating with each other better. we spent millions of dollars on the fusion centers for information sharing among agencies and then on troubled i am troubled to find you are running an investigation covering some of the same suspects basically parallel investigations of the drug enforcement administration and there was an unwillingness or a failure to coordinate among other agencies. would that be a fair assessment of what happened? there are multiple investigations and the dea didn't know what you were up to and vice versa. >> as far as i'm concerned that is the complete opposite of that. when we received the funding to get a gun runner groups up and running one of the first things we did is assigned and the strike force groups so they could work hand-in-hand with the

theater agencies coming and i think this case is an example of how that was one of the positive things. the dea had some information that they shared with us that helped us and our investigation and helped foster it even more so. >> why weren't we coordinating of the different investigations? at the very least that seems wasteful of the taxpayers' money. >> i don't think from what i've seen there were different investigations, the parallel investigation the dea is going to focus on the narcotics and we focus on the firearms. >> i have a couple other questions going off on things that struck me as odd. mr. mcmahon, during the tendency of operation just and furious did you ever get the chance to go down to mexico and visit with any folks in mexico? did you speak to mr. canino? >> i did. >> did he raise concerns about

the guns tracing back to phoenix? >> not that i recall, nope. >> mr. canino, did you discuss that? do you recall? >> it wasn't anything specific. it was and passing. like i said earlier, when mr. mcmahon has been supportive of our office in mexico and me personally, but like i said earlier, when this case was going on, and when he asked me what you think is going on, like i said earlier, i thought the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix is reluctant to let our guys make any arrests. our guys have stumbled onto a gun range and due diligence and that is why so many guns have turned up in the database so quickly and number three, i

thought that our guys would just losing them on surveillance, not able to get to the gun store in time. that's what i thought at that time. i didn't know that we had, operators and a couple of the stores. so our concern, and i just said how come there's so many guns turning out so quickly. >> you didn't share with me what was going on. >> we have a gun trafficking case in phoenix and they are doing a good job. >> did he ever raised concern over the number of weapons being recovered in the crime scenes in mexico? >> i think it's important to realize they are being covered for quite a while and we are all concerned about that. coming from phoenix, coming from texas, that's what we did. that was our main focus in

mexico and along the southwest border. it's for the past four years it is where all of our resources have gone. this -- guns being recovered in mexico from the u.s. is something that atf has been putting everything that we have into for the past quite a few years as long as i have been in the headquarters. >> i see that once again i'm running out of time and i see that we are getting late so i will yield back. >> thank the gentleman. >> no more questions. >> azzaoui wind this hearing down, just sitting here thinking that you know, this agency is very important, and we've heard now from two sets of agents and all of whom and dedicated to their jobs, and i think one of

mine greatest concerns as we go forward special agent newell and mcmahon since you are in supervisory positions, i just hope it does not hurt the morale of the organization. when i look at the emotions of special agent canino and others, i mean, some kind of way we've got to make sure that we get back on track. i just think it's so important because the job you do, there's 1800 a few of? that many. and small agencies. we can't afford to have the provision in this agency, would you agree, special agent? >> i totally agree, sir, that's the highest priority right now to get people back contract.

mahlon all of us can have your show the passion that carlos pass, but i guarantee we all have that. we might keep it inside more than carlos, but this is a passionate thing for all of us. when we talk about the second amendment, and i believe that we are the defenders of the second amendment, and we have to follow that very fine line of what is part of the legal commerce and the legal commerce and that is a part of the challenge that we fully accept and that's something that we drill in to us early in the academy something we fully accept and we do every day. as i sit in my statement i am very proud of the people out there now and to have been in the past and the work they are doing. >> i want to go back to july 12, 2011 to the attorney general. the chairman eyesight and senator grassley wrote these words and they said there has been public speculation that gun

control may have been a motivating factor behind proving of risky strategy used in the operation and fast and furious and in other words, by allowing the straw purchasers to continue to operate. and by encouraging the gun dealers to go through with what were obviously suspicious sales the atf should be able to justify the additional regulatory authority. the letter notes that the committee has seen no evidence to support the speculation that goes on to ask the department of justice to respond anyway. mr. newell comedy were the special agent in charge of who oversaw this operation and to do work to do the last year what was your reaction to the speculation when you were engaged in the operation just and furious i asked you for the record were you deliberately attempting and do you know others that were delivering or

attempting to send guns to mexico to justify additional firearms regulations? >> in response to your question i don't recall saying that. estimate i didn't say that you did. i'm just saying do you believe that based on everything you know? a, i don't. >> absolutely not, sir. >> did you see any evidence that acted out of anything but a sincere desire to combat a major trafficking network in this case? >> not at all, sir. >> the was begole and a very dedicated agents on the field doing that every day. in this case and many other cases. >> while it is fair to question the judgment in the case, and i certainly question it and again, we are trying to get to the bottom of all of this is asking the conspiracy to harm others of those beyond, and i just -- i

just want to make sure that the american people are that we have an atf which is operating in the doing what it is supposed to do. obviously some mistakes have been made. very unfortunate mistakes, and i think the one thing we have to do is learn from those mistakes and let them happen again because they can have very, very tragic consequences. and so, of with that, mr. chairman, i yield that. >> i will try to be brief on a couple last questions. first of all i'm asked to include some additional documents that were shared and reducted with justice so that we can keep them in the record and potentially ask questions afterwards. but all of you be willing to answer additional questions based on what is in the record

afterwards if we have follow-ups. >> yes, sir. >> in january 2010 he produced a memo that line 13 says currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place albeit at a much slower pace in order to further the investigation and allow the identification of additional co-conspirators who would continue to operate illegally, trafficking firearms to mexico. >> if i will read that correctly in addition to leader where it says the dea has specifically requested that the level continue the investigation. if i read this memo of yours correctly at least by january january 10th or january, 2010, and you knew that these weapons were going to specifically

weapons that you are allowing to be sold were going to the drug cartels and mexico and then you lobbied for in this memo is a continuation partially because of the request is their anything in planning which i don't understand here? >> i think that sentence about the part of the sentence would is who would continue is based on the fact that we believe that if we did take the necessary steps to disrupt the holding, this group would continue to have large firearms. >> we are not disagreeing that these are determined incredibly rich billions of dollars of drug money groups that have the power to corrupt the mexican government at times, but u.s. officials to buy a anything they want anywhere in the world in vast quantities. we are not -- certainly i don't think that anyone on the day as

fails to understand that we have a marco state almost being formed in mexico the way that we have in colombia and a day and we are fighting to push back on a terrible tragedy that has occurred in mexico, but the question here is as of january 8th, i find this document to be irrefutable evidence that you knew weapons to continue to sell, albeit at a slower pace, also backed away the evidence is it didn't slow down right away but eventually it did, were in fact going to mexico you knew it. you knew that when you sold particularly some of the individuals whose weapons had already been found, you knew that the straw buyer was buying it, you knew who they were transporting it to, i was paying for it and where it was in the gap. isn't that true as of january, 2010? >> we didn't sell firearms, sir.

>> you can close. you told the dealer to go ahead and sell it. you knew who the buyer was and that there was a repeat by year end to the intermediary was and the supplier of money coming and you knew where they were ending up. isn't that true? >> we believe -- we were working on the organization -- >> no, no, wait a second. we aren't talking about what you had to prove to the jury of 12th. i will go over these agents and they are going to make you look like a fool if you don't answer this honestly. you knew that a was going to be and he was going to the cartel. you knew that outright and so did the dea as of january and that the briefing says, doesn't it? answer me honestly just clearly and simply. >> with all due respect when it comes to the dea portion of that it was the fact that dea had an ongoing investigation from which we gathered the information was led to the initiation of the case so that sentence discusses the fact that they said what

ever you don't do anything to compromise the case which we did respect. and in response to the of their question is absolutely. the group that we are working with, we knew that that was their intention of funneled tons -- >> with a second come intention to read it was in detention. it was a pass that occurred for a year isn't that true? you had watched the repeated straw buyers make purchases, deliver them, and those weapons have shown consistently in the hands of specific cartels. and as you know, you knew who was paying for them, isn't that true? >> when the memo was written in january, we were probably i would say two months in the investigation at that point. >> three months earlier, i apologize. the previous year. >> so three months into the program about a thousand weapons or less. you knew the weapons you're telling the gun dealers to go

ahead and sell to the same straw buyers again and again, you already have 20. the number is here so i'm kind of going well, you've invited 20. 19 of whom were the straw strong buyer coming and you knew the repeat kept coming after you knew starting points bad man or moneyman and endpoint, isn't that true? >> what we believe and suspected is shorter of what we could prove. >> finally you've given me the answer i wanted. you knew everything you needed to know to understand everything that led to the charges. you didn't have enough to make the case said he went on month after month for the weapons to make the case we didn't know them. we had a large group of straw purchasers and would continue to build the case throughout but

with the u.s. attorney's office needed the evidence to prove -- >> they wanted this investigation to go on past january, 2010. >> who? >> mr. brewer, was debriefed by 2010? >> i don't know if he was. estimate but his office approved the wiretap under his authority. you said you didn't read the wiretap, i guess neither one of you read the requirements. but, somebody had to be brief to cite this on his behalf. did either of you ever briefed him or anyone else that could sign on his behalf? >> i did not, no, sir. >> so, i guess we are just going to figure you knew on january 8th you had the same people buying weapons repeatedly leading to the same cartel and you didn't quit because you haven't made your case, so we continued selling until we have a dead federal agent and a

scandal. that's pretty much what i've heard here today. many of the agents that work in the field if he would see something different than this kept going after -- everything was known except if you keep doing it long enough we will get better cases for the u.s. attorney and then it began falling apart after brian terrie was murdered. has anyone in the first seen anything different? correct me if i have missed something. >> i'm still sitting here listening to the conversation and it's still unbelievable to me and to be honest with you i still don't know what to believe why this investigation was initiated and why it continued for so long. i just don't know. >> words escapes me to try to do any better than you don't know why and i don't know why either. the gentle lady from new york for an additional round. >> thank you. i would like to follow-up on the line of questioning of the

congressman when he was talking about the lack of communication, which after 9/11 we had many commissions and studies and what came out of the commission was our intelligence wasn't working and we were not communicating and we've been overhauled the government to the most major overhaul of the intelligence since 1948. and it seems to be a little bit of the same thing of what i'm hearing about these hearings because people are saying they didn't know anything. and saying they told people and it's not getting through. so the communication isn't taking place. when you mentioned 9/11, the mayor of new york, and we are about to come upon thee in the lead to attend the anniversary of that day, has been airing tv ads and new york where they use the words of an al qaeda leader

who is talking to his followers saying go to america. it's so easy to go get a gun. get all the guns you need. and a hour fight for the al qaeda. so this is an ad about how illegal people who want to hurt americans are being instructed literally to come to america and get guns in order to combat democracy, and so i think this hearing is very, very serious about it was a part of the legal guns. earlier we had a hearing and we had several agencies, very brave, very frustrated and very. and they testified that they were concerned about the cellar of the guns to destroy all agents. they were concerned about not having their breasts about being ordered not to make arrests and not to conduct surveillance.

and i understand that you were asked, mr. newell and mr. mcmahon, and you didn't hear any of their frustrations. they testified that they reported this to their supervisors and nothing happened data that is why they were so frustrated. so i think we've got to figure out what happens when someone reports something they feel is illegal, wrong, dangerous or harmful to life. and i'm not just talking about what happened in fast and furious. i'm talking about going forward. agents on the ground who think someone should be arrested and they are being told not to make an arrest or when they're being told not to make a surveillance and the supervisor says don't do it and they say we should do it and they are complaining to someone else, that information has got to go up the line in order to have the proper law enforcement and proper protection for our citizens.

so i ask anyone on the panel to comment, but i think this is a very serious, very serious blockade or serious problem if people who feel something wrong and harmful to the safety of americans or to mexicans is taking place, then someone should be listening. and it is a chain of command is not listening, then maybe there should be an alternative chain of command put in place or something because this type of concern has got to get to the proper authority in order to make proper decisions to make arrests, continue the surveillance and do the proper things to stop the illegal like to be. so i just would ask any of you to comment on what we have been hearing people say they ask for help, and other people say they've never heard anything. so what's going on? is there some, you know, black hole to fall into?

why didn't the complaints or concerns of the on the line defenders of justice, why didn't their concerns about what they thought would be illegal and dangerous get to the proper authority? ..

>> the other tools in the toolbox are there, interviews, phone records and so forth. the investigation with the dun's are not a disposable product. they will be out there for years or decades. they are a durable goods with a marketable item that is why his starkly my career and training officers i train my young agents it is inconceivable you let the weapons walk. >> the same thing lifting one gonna walk is a hugh address. begun can last 10 or 20 or

30 years ago in in the hands of criminals virtually if is a loaded weapon that is out there and uncontrollable. typically, i a.m. dumbfounded by the number of weapons and how it got to that point* still manages supporting what mr. gill said her. >> thank you, mr. chairman you can see i am passionate about what i do. i don't want to give you the impression or the ranking member or the committee the impression that i never made mistakes. high was a very active agent than anybody who knows me

knows i have made mistakes. i respect bill and consider them friends it is not easy for them to be here today. but hopefully this will not happened again and win the committee finally issues their report, our agency will be better for it and we can move on down the line. i did agree first order of business from our agency is to build the marvell, a close ranks and move forward to support each other. >> thank you. >> yes. i would like to say i think the congress man touched on the underlying problem for hour it agency with a major investigations and talked about 9/11 in the lessons we learned and lack the sharing of information and the intel

but with a major case investigation and i learned things with my other agencies and one of the things that i see in a tea of that were lacking on the intel lead investigative side of the house, the intel structure within the atf is very limited. the resources, headquarters to put this into perspective with some of battle calderon is waging against the drug cartel we need to meet that challenge and they are going out to these guns and we have to stop the flow because they cannot win if they are replenish. with that in mind we have to start the best practices of

other agencies and intel led investigation not just single investigations. we have silos systems in divisions that work. everything from out of the division house to stop. their house to be headquarters, and not oversight and get into their business but like the other agencies. the exchange of information and freely. partner of that outside agencies at all levels of the way of to headquarters. to do that we have to build the intelligence structure to support not only the agents in the field but the partners in mexico in fellow agencies. >> i will cut you off only because of time that constraint but first of all, you are thinking on a bipartisan basis of what we need to do in probably would have you back as we get into

the corrective band reorganization phase if appropriate. all those that are on the street today have not been convicted -- convicted of a crime if they balk into a gun shop today just because they have been arrested does that mean they could buy a weapon today? >> no because they are under indictment but i am not sure if the system would capture that if they did attempt to buy a weapon. >> today you know, the they should not be able to buy and should not be on the street but 20 straw buyers are on the street and you're not sure if all 20 are in fact, presently in the system or any federally licensed gun store would stop them? >> that is not our system it is run by another agency.

>> guy understand that but right now you don't have full confidence they are not out there doing straw purchases? >> they were granted bail as everybody is entitled. >> there also granted a speedy trial but it has been delayed until february of next year. >> it was scheduled it in june but then postponed till february. >> with that we have to return. thank you. >> point* of personal privilege. >> i have come back from this hearing to have my position can i have my troop positions been appearing in mind you told all of us on this side were owned by the nra. >> if i could see my position i was here for some time.

i did not hear anybody speak up then i could understand. >> actually the gentlelady left. >> but i was here 15 or 20 minutes but i can only be grateful to say i was filed or the words of the kind that were uttered when another member was outraged in his absence his position was characterized. yes. as i heard pontificating for law enforcement officers who risked their lives, i was moved to indicate that we had not given atf agents the tools that they deserve. and indeed i indicated the

issue's spread even into the city's borough as for the district of columbia laws were raised, the district of columbia and light of the carnage or for the decade, those laws have been found to be constitutional. for decades every appellate court has so found for the district laws and the laws of other states until a supreme court overturned the findings of prior chords for the first time. the district of columbia proceeded enacted a sets of gun laws which have cents been found constitutional and yet members of this body have filed bills seeking to

overturn the laws of the local jurisdiction simply because they disagree with the way they approach gun-control. you can approach gun-control any way you like in arizona and california but not at liberty to tell the people of the district how to approach it who have to live with the carnage especially when the law has been declared constitutional. yes. i stand behind the notion the reason the atf agents do not have the laws they need is because the republicans have over and over again introduced laws that would in fact, keep them from those laws gifting in the way. and i have been bipartisan because there have been some in my own party who have stood with them.

mr. chairman, i have been taken the agents to the woodshed but it does seem to me that congress they are entitled to something from us. in light they have testified that they need more tools in order to do their jobs whether you would co-sponsor the bill that has been introduced that would in fact, give them the tools so this does that happen again and would you be willing to sponsor that bill? >> no man. >> enough said. >> you bear witness to the other side of the aisle at work. with that we stand adjourned [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] an ho.

>> this hearing will to >> figuring will come to order i will make remarks and the vice chairman will makews, remarks that we will

call on the distinguished senator from north dakota for remarks. then we will proceed. i trust that is agreeable with everybody. the committee meets today to consider the president's nomination of match olson to be director of the national counterterrorism center. mr. olson and is currently the general counsel of the national security agency and has held a number of senior positions in the department of justice including the security division and the pivot -- federal bureau of investigation and on appeared as a witnessommi before this committeeevio previously and frequently briefed members andiefe stafff overf the last several years. i would like to welcome back to thise committee and the like to discuss the currentt t terrorist threat and the role of whatand we call of what mr. olson would be leading ifle confirmed the nctc is a

central agency to the with the identification, prevention disruption and analysis of terrorist threats and it is very important. while best known for their role of consolidating and analyzing terrorism related intelligence, but also plays an important role of conducting strategic planning for a counter plou acrossd actions the government. of the nctc grewcant significantly and size come of capability and maturity under the previous director. the successes and those other broader counterterrorism community include numerous terroristst p plots that were supported both here of home and abroad. nctc has also achieved less noticed but equallylly important to advances in the

sharing of threatis information across an intelligence community. streamlining of intelligence and great week improved analytic activity but in response to the findings and recommendations of this committee and others after the christmas day attempted oe attack, i am still very concerned about the tacsibility of terrorist attacks against the united states and this is a critical time. p the period leading up to the tenth anniversary is a period of heightened threat and despite counterterrorism pressure against budget with us on a bin laden in a bottom by the group remains dangerous but the same times the threat from the al qaeda

affiliate's around the world has increased to represents a particular challenge. i animate especially concerned to the threat of the united states homeland from al qaeda in the arabian peninsula as well as threats emanating from a safe haven in somalia and elsewhere s i time forialoris the counterterrorismrism establishment to be at fulleng strength and not to be what we do is.tc nctc it is a linchpin of theest establishment so i am very pleased the president has moved quickly to nominate mr. olson, an individual serving in the senior intelligenceen community position today to take the helm of this organization. let me take just a moment to read the first paragraph from a letter of support

from at -- for mr. olson nomination written by general keith alexander the director of the national security agency. this is a quote. i am writing too wholeheartedly endorse the nomination of matthew will send to be the next director of the nctc is serving as the national security agency for the pasty year and has shown outstanding judgment abilitysion making and will be a key part of the agency's effort to counter terrorist threatsop which is superbly qualified to hold this critical intelligence community position and with the department of justice for 18 years including 12 years as

a federal prosecutor. as a letter of support for the nomination former attorney general michael mukasey wrote of mr. olson and not only an excellent lawyer and manager, but also an exemplary person in dealing with his colleagues. he has in abundance every personal and professional quality and skill you could hope to find in a nominee toy an head the nctc. his nomination has my unqualified support" and finally a letter from mike mcconnell and which she also offers his strongest possible support. as a 44 year veteran of serving the nation as a member of the intelligence community, i had manyes opportunities to work with professionals of the department of justice.. this was particularly true when serving as a director

of national security and as such director of the national intelligence. i have never met and service the more accomplished your dedicated professionals and match olson. they have served with ce h we could go onge and on.s but suffice it to say i believe we have an extraordinarily qualifiedied professional which couldon step into theal leadership of nctc in that this potentially useful marvell period come a provide it with the leadership thatrs really does deserve and merit.t, with that, mr. vice chairman , . >> thank you very much. ol

congratulations on beingtha nominated to be fed director for the nctc faq for your service with this very demanding roll over the last several years and also look and your family and thank you for their support to you and two our country. we appreciate that. also i just want to say a special word of thanks to michael who you'll be succeeding. we've talked about this the other day. you know, thealaeg he o leadere haskno provided in difficult circumstances and while we stillstil have some growing pains at nctc mike has brought us through some tough times and has righted the ship when it was hit in the wrongit's direction and i am appreciative of his leadership. s your nomination comes at aint critical point* in ourf history was the fight againstr terrorism although we made considerable

progress we face growing threat has subsided continues to spread. in my view aqap in e in then it urges the greatest threat energy to make that your primary focus before the strike successfully at home. the past spring brought immense changes to the middle east but it remains unclear what effect it may have on long-term counterterrorism efforts. the uncertainty has further complicated by the current hfdrl condition where restrains wrote impact the national defense and counter terrorism enterprise.th it is critical to the national security are fully performing their mission and failings about the levying to the christmas day attempt although to connect dots and a lot of work remains on information

sharing and data retention and if there is the imminent threat to mike times square you are often in the first contact with this committee and we expect your analytic judgments, the facts and frank assessments per preference to control the message for political purposes results in congress being given little or inaccurate information. that is not pointing a finger at this thr tistration but others.purp i but to push back in a effort to keep the information from us. along the sameal lines i have shared with you some of mybou concerns about thet recommendations made about the task force but it serves me they were prepared for a

chance for even as early as 2009 even though the war did lustration of the security situation there. or a new former gitmo detainee is where with aqap leadership in yemen but only after aqap failed christmas day tech that the transfer stopped work in my mind this was the an acceptable risk to take. dimension in my office of pressure on the task force because you are guided by the executive order to close gitmo vice suspect the t deadline affected task force analysis and decisions. and the original options werepr prosecution retrieves for it seems like there would be significantew pressure to lean toward the transfer and wonder if this explains why found 82 detainee suitable for transfer but a second came up with 40 more transferable detainee said another 34

conditional detention which at the time was essentially delayed transfer. congressman wolf of virginia who has expressed similar concerns in a letter to the committee and some of the interactions that he had with year regarded the potential transfer into the united states, i am concerned a member of congress thinks he has been misled is what would be helpful to explainofhtebfu and 2 you to have your opportunity ise forthcoming but including provided to our with howled and chronically in your new position one of the jobs would be tracking former detainee sue have ringees gauged including some recommended for transfer by the task f force and i urge you to takeu to a look of any intelligence of thegi detainees and givenv the

threat and the recidivism rate of 26%, we're in no position to let any more dangerous detainee's go and unfortunately the drive to close gitmo has the immediate and negative impact with few options to detain terrace outside of afghanistan progress read drawn down there we will lose the option. i am sure you seen press story saying the united states may kill the terrace but not trying ferry hard to ras ure them. lothtion becauseb it has been taken offt the table and this is why end of the best ways to get to intelligence and prevent future threats. so we congratulate you on your nomination and these issues need to be laid on the table and flush out the ku saysco it will be you. so many instances we need

too>> certainly have that feeling of trust that we have developed and need to develop stronger over the coming years while you were in this position. >> thank you mr. vice-chairman now i will recognize the distinguished senator from north dakota on that democratic side, it can conrad. >> thank you. u, thank you vice-chairman and senator senators, i am delighted to be introducing match olson. parents are from northh dakota and people who might have known for a very long time.ti by his roots are deep and returns every chance he gets with hisdak family and his wife and his children and his sister is with us as well.rs

i have known this family for a very long time. they are the best that it gets. his father was the chief of staff to the man i defeated for the united states senate. so i know how good he really is. he passed away three years ago but i know he is looking down with a twinkle in his side today proud of matte and all that he hasow hnkle accomplished for pro after defeatingome vince i came here with some trepidation -- trepidation what their relationship maybe theyit treated near the greatest courtesy and became very good friends.e the highest quality peopleat that our state has toe offer and i believe the highest quality